|
bigballer
Anon
2014-Jun-2 9:19 am
Guess I don't have broadband hereLet's see:
for comcast:
3/768: 39.95 6/1: 49.95 12/2: 64 | |
|
| Zenit_IIfxThe system is the solution Premium Member join:2012-05-07 Purcellville, VA |
Re: Guess I don't have broadband hereWow, what Comcast system are you in? Are you in an area that is going to be spun off to SpinCo after the Comcast-Time Warner Merger? | |
|
| | |
bigballer
Anon
2014-Jun-2 9:28 am
Re: Guess I don't have broadband hereChicago
Internet only prices. Clearly my market isn't very competitive. My only other option is ATT (DSL, not Uverse.)
Some suburbs are lucky enough to get WOW, which only charges something like 15/2 for 49.99. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Guess I don't have broadband heremust be older plans as they have newer faster speeds at or under the prices you list there. | |
|
| | | | |
bigballer
Anon
2014-Jun-2 9:44 am
Re: Guess I don't have broadband hereI'm referring to internet only plans. No TV/phone bundle.
I believe comcast bumped up speeds for those who are bundled | |
|
| | | | | |
Speedy
Anon
2014-Jun-2 12:00 pm
Re: Guess I don't have broadband heresaid by bigballer :I believe comcast bumped up speeds for those who are bundled I have Blast Tier out in deep suburbia and I pay $63.95/mo for 100/10 mbps speeds and I get better than that on a WiFi connected laptop:
| |
|
| | | | | | BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 5:50 pm
Re: Guess I don't have broadband hereYeah, I'm not even in a major market, and I get 111/11 on my Blast! connection. | |
|
| | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
to bigballer
wha? I'm in Chi and I have 50/10 for $70, which is still a rip off but marginally acceptable.
Chicago coverage is street to street but I'm kinda surprised they won't give you any high speed options. | |
|
| | | | ITGeeks join:2014-04-20 Cleveland, OH |
Re: Guess I don't have broadband hereCould be using an old modem. | |
|
| | | | | dfxmatt join:2007-08-21 Crystal Lake, IL |
Re: Guess I don't have broadband hereisn't the default that they rent you one of their own so it supports the maximum possible speeds? | |
|
| | | | | |
bigballer to ITGeeks
Anon
2014-Jun-2 11:55 am
to ITGeeks
nope, moto 6120 | |
|
| | |
to Zenit_IIfx
Shit I thought Cox was bad...I pay $60 for 50/10 | |
|
| | | |
Re: Guess I don't have broadband hereThat is bad considering CenturyLink will do 40/5 for $29.99 or 40/20 for $34.99 if you're close enough to the DSLAM.
I also go over the "cap" on CenturyLink on a regular basis and never hear a peep from them. Cox was charging me $72 a month and I'd get emails monthly until they finally told me I had to go to a business plan for using 280GB, so I just took my business elsewhere. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Guess I don't have broadband hereThat's interesting, considering I pay $46 a month for "Pure" DSL from Centurylink at 10Mbps/768Kbps. | |
|
Zenit_IIfxThe system is the solution Premium Member join:2012-05-07 Purcellville, VA ·Comcast XFINITY
|
This is importantAs time goes on, the minimum speed needed to partake in the usage of modern information services goes up. By increasing this minimum definition, it will put more pressure on the Cable providers to offer speeds 10mbps or above, and make the national broadband statistics more truthful.
Today, 25mbps download bandwidth seems to be a sweet spot. Downloads of large files are sufficiently quick, small files download near-instantly, and HD streaming is possible.
If the FCC does this, all of VZ Wireline in my town wont be considered broadband, unless you live right next door to the ailing DSLAM in the CO. (The solution will be the FIOS promised, but they are yet to even begin construction and the deadline approaches fast. Instead, they build outside the town in semi-rural subdivisions.) | |
|
| |
Re: This is importantgood thing that ATT is buying directv as they can move subs over sat and free up room / change profiles for faster internet on u-verse. Keeping the TV part for people who can't get sat / temp rain fade backup. | |
|
| | |
Re: This is importantYou'd get at most a 10mbps bump in speed, probably closer to 5 or 6 | |
|
| ITGeeks join:2014-04-20 Cleveland, OH |
to Zenit_IIfx
How is it going to put pressure on the MSOs? The ISPs don't set their speeds based upon this. This "redefining" means nothing as it always has. The FCC is just in the "news again" for nothing. | |
|
| | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Jun-2 12:22 pm
Re: This is importantsaid by ITGeeks:How is it going to put pressure on the MSOs? The ISPs don't set their speeds based upon this. This "redefining" means nothing as it always has. The FCC is just in the "news again" for nothing. Indeed. The FCC has no authority to force ISPs to offer any particular speed. At most, the FCC could tell ISPs they cannot advertise any service below 4/1 as "broadband" under the current definition. At most a new definition will result in less coverage per the National Broadband Map, but I doubt if ISPs care much about that. And more importantly, the FCC has no authority to set broadband prices. So it's not clear to me what this will actually accomplish. | |
|
| | | dcurrey Premium Member join:2004-06-29 Mason, OH |
dcurrey
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 1:24 pm
Re: This is importantLast time I checked my cable company doesn't sell me broadband. They offer high speed internet. | |
|
| | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Jun-2 2:27 pm
Re: This is importantsaid by dcurrey:Last time I checked my cable company doesn't sell me broadband. They offer high speed internet. Exactly. And that term has no official government definition. So ISPs won't really care how the FCC defines "broadband". | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: This is importantsaid by fg8578:said by dcurrey:Last time I checked my cable company doesn't sell me broadband. They offer high speed internet. Exactly. And that term has no official government definition. So ISPs won't really care how the FCC defines "broadband". if they didnt they wouldnt be complaining about it. | |
|
| | | | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Jun-2 8:56 pm
Re: This is importantsaid by mgamer20o0:if they didnt they wouldnt be complaining about it. I haven't seen any ISPs complain about it, it's been all users. But if you have a link, please do share. | |
|
| |
to Zenit_IIfx
I wonder what strategy ISPs will choose to meet the 10Mbps target. The FCC's expected outcome is cheaper and more ubiquitous 10Mbps access but telcos/cablecos could also choose to simply axe their sub-10Mbps plans in markets where they can offer at least that much using existing infrastructure. Same goes if they decide to upgrade their sub-10Mbps plan and apply rate hikes accordingly.
In either case, many people may end up effectively forced to pay extra for speed they have little to no use for.
Government-mandated indirect rate hikes, yay! | |
|
| | |
Re: This is importantThis might be the logic at the FCC. Since the cable companies have DOCSIS3.0 with 16 and 24 channel bonding, thus 300 Mbps and 450 Mbps capability, offering a minimum service that is less than 6.25%(1/16) of the top service tier speeds should be relatively inexpensive. The proposed minimum is below the maximum that one unbonded channel can reliably produce, thus no need for channel bonding modems to replace old single channel ones. | |
|
1 edit |
Frontier only offers 3 Mbps/768bps at my house,so I am all for the FCC upping the definition for broadband.
This should put pressure on Frontier, besides the fact that my residential block is going over 50% for an overbuilder fiber CLEC that should be installing in the next month. They just installed the new ONT the other day on the side of the house. | |
|
| klineba join:2010-08-30 Perrysville, OH |
Re: Frontier only offers 3 Mbps/768bps at my house,Lucky you, I only get 1.5 tops. They might as well classify broadband as gigabit. It is not going help my connection any. | |
|
| |
to Bob61571
Or it could be AT&T at my aunt's place in Ohio. The copper is so shitty outside, she technically qualifies for 12Mbps ADSL2+ U-Verse internet, but the max the line will actually do is 3M/500k.
Luckily they were able to make it $9.99/mo for the remainder of her contract, so 3Mbps is fine for that price but still insane in this day and age. | |
|
| | bmccoy join:2013-03-18 Port Orchard, WA |
bmccoy
Member
2014-Jun-2 1:51 pm
Re: Frontier only offers 3 Mbps/768bps at my house,Hah, you're lucky. CenturyStink (previously Qworst) is still only offering G.DMT (ADSL) in my area, and they refuse to upgrade to at least ADSL2+ (which is more efficient and can reach more homes). According to their website, right next door to the CO for my town, the fastest internet available is 7Mbps/768k. And I'm still stuck with 1.5Mbps. I honestly don't know why I hadn't switched to cable internet sooner, now I'm getting 55Mbps on my cable ISP's mid-end plan with TV and phone for $115.00 compared to $95.00 for 1.5Mbps internet and unlimited phone from CenturyStink. I still wish Google Fiber would come to my town, *sigh*. | |
|
spewakR.I.P Dadkins Premium Member join:2001-08-07 Elk Grove, CA |
spewak
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 9:50 am
NarrowbandThat is what Frontier would call their product. | |
|
| |
Re: Narrowbandsaid by spewak:That is what Frontier would call their product. More like Microband.... | |
|
| klineba join:2010-08-30 Perrysville, OH |
to spewak
Truth in advertising. The only thing that will change if they up the definition of broadband to 10Mbps, will be that my connection will be UP TO 10Mbps instead of UP TO 6Mbps as it is now. | |
|
| | |
Elioswork
Anon
2014-Jun-2 12:00 pm
Re: NarrowbandFCC needs to make it 10Mbps up and down MINIMUM sustained speeds(over an hour) | |
|
| | | 54761437 (banned) join:2013-01-18 Durham, NC |
54761437 (banned)
Member
2014-Jun-2 9:03 pm
Re: NarrowbandAGREED. The speed of the connection doesn't mean shit if the connection isn't reliable. This is especially true of DSLAMs and cable nodes that are overloaded with no end in sight. Less true of fiber. | |
|
2 recommendations |
Governement over-reach by someI'm sure there will be a certain portion of the population that says this is complete over-reach by the government! | |
|
| ••••• |
michieru Premium Member join:2009-07-25 Denver, CO |
michieru
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 10:01 am
No power.I don't see what does it matter for the carriers since they are just going to adjust the costs accordingly. Even if they do fall off the FCC standard for what broadband should be it's only a standard and not one I believe could be enforced. So at the end of the day this becomes the 3G/4G debate in which carries have decided to call LTE a 4G term even though initially it was still classified as 3G. | |
|
| ITGeeks join:2014-04-20 Cleveland, OH |
Re: No power.enforced? The FCC can't enforce it. The internet is no a communications service. It's Information Services. | |
|
|
Unstream speedsNo mention of the definition of upstream speeds mentioned. AT&T U-verse at upstream of 1.0 Mbps sure doesn't qualify as 'broadband' | |
|
|
Well Time warner cable is going to be pissed10/3 well the plans of there customers are on are like this
$14.99-2/1 $57.99-15/1 $67.99-20/2
Only two of there plans will really be broadband now:
$77.99-30/5 $87.99-50/5
This is just sad at this point. Only those in NYC and LA are going to get good speeds out of TWC while the rest will most likely suffer from non-broadband speeds. | |
|
SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
CL better upgrade!Looks like instead of bumping ADSL to ADSL2+, they'd better be jumping to VDSL2 instead.
Of course, this would require an investment in the network, and we all know how hesitant CL and AT&T are about that. | |
|
| |
Re: CL better upgrade!What I never understood is why they just did not put fiber into new developments here in Bozeman, that'd force Charter to consider offering 60/4 if not something with another channel for upload. Even certain places in town you can't get above 1.5 megs. That should not even be considered "high-speed".
From what I have also heard, Centurylink does not want to offer Prism TV even if they built out fiber here. It makes me wonder if certain regulations are hampering progress or is it just another leverage point since they know they won't be held accountable.
I would be for raising the speeds up. I think if this can get us to 5/1 or 5/2, I would be happy since that is what Google is offering for free. | |
|
|
JohnCC
Member
2014-Jun-2 11:40 am
What's the point?Am I missing something here - does it even matter what the "definition" of broadband is? Advertising won't change, they just won't be able to call it "broadband." Big whoop. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Probitas
Anon
2014-Jun-2 11:55 am
It gives them justification to raise ratesIt will be 'See we care enough to offer faster services (up to X of course), but providing those services costs Y." But can you turn that around and say I'll pay up to Y for X? Not a chance. Pricing is fixed, speeds are not guaranteed. One of the reasons to have this classed as Title II, to force some regulation into an area that's been abused far too much. Guaranteed price creep on non-guaranteed speeds. | |
|
|
robbyglack
Anon
2014-Jun-2 12:00 pm
does it need to be so fast?i am not sure raising the speed bar helps, at least not in terms of making broadband more affordable. i would rather see a very cheaply priced basic offering than have the minimum speed raised along with price increases which may be likely.
also what stops ISPs from selling 'internet' instead of 'broadband' and the entire point becomes irrelevant. | |
|
·PenTeleData ARRIS SB8200
|
Would this force providers to up their speed?My current cable speed is 20/2. If the FCC does this, would my provider be forced to increase that upload to at least 3mbps?
What about Verizon DSL here (the only other competition besides Satellite internet)? They go up to 6mbps. Would they be forced to upgrade to technology that can provide at least 10/3? That would be nice to have actual competition instead of one provider.
While they are at it, they should remove caps from wireline broadband. | |
|
| |
robbyglack
Anon
2014-Jun-2 2:20 pm
Re: Would this force providers to up their speed?said by cypherstream:My current cable speed is 20/2. If the FCC does this, would my provider be forced to increase that upload to at least 3mbps?
What about Verizon DSL here (the only other competition besides Satellite internet)? They go up to 6mbps. Would they be forced to upgrade to technology that can provide at least 10/3? That would be nice to have actual competition instead of one provider.
While they are at it, they should remove caps from wireline broadband. or they could just advertise that they sell 'internet' instead of 'broadband internet' | |
|
Packeteers Premium Member join:2005-06-18 Forest Hills, NY Asus RT-AC3100 (Software) Asuswrt-Merlin
|
watch Comcast fight thishere's why... Comcast & TWCable argue they must join to compete with Satellite and Copper if the very best 7mbps Satellite and ADSL2 ISP is no longer called Broadband, then how can they claim Comcast needs to buy TWCable for both to "compete" | |
|
| |
your name
Anon
2014-Jun-2 1:43 pm
Re: watch Comcast fight thissaid by Packeteers:here's why... Comcast & TWCable argue they must join to compete with Satellite and Copper if the very best 7mbps Satellite and ADSL2 ISP is no longer called Broadband, then how can they claim Comcast needs to buy TWCable for both to "compete" The real truth is that a company keeps growing or dies. Stockholders don't like companies that don't grow. So Comcast grows by buying up other cable companies. But that simple truth understood by every CEO and every investor is politically incorrect to admit to the general public, who like to live in a fantasy land where everything should be free(which they have got used to thanks to advertising money). So, guess what, marketing and PR types dream up lies to sell to the regulators and the general public. And the regulators, afraid for their jobs from the bought and paid for politicians, go along with the deception, knowing full well it is a lie. | |
|
|
AT&T DSL will be the new AOL dial upThis will make it official.... AT&T "FastAccess" DSL is the new AOL. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
robbyglack
Anon
2014-Jun-2 2:20 pm
Re: AT&T DSL will be the new AOL dial upsaid by Gilitar:This will make it official.... AT&T "FastAccess" DSL is the new AOL. if DSL were priced like dialup that may actually be a good thing. we should have an inexpensive option for home internet even if its not a fast as other options. | |
|
plk Premium Member join:2002-04-20 united state 1 edit |
plk
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 1:09 pm
I smell a broadband USF hand outSo, if they move to USF for broadband deployment..... does this mean with the new definition of broadband the Bells get to tap the new subsidy? "Add" allowing it for 4g and it would be great. The cables can charge the fee and it gets handed to the Bells for 4g deployment. | |
|
| |
Re: I smell a broadband USF hand outBoy do I hope you're joking. | |
|
| | plk Premium Member join:2002-04-20 united state 1 edit |
plk
Premium Member
2014-Jun-3 8:43 am
Re: I smell a broadband USF hand outI wish I was. But with these people something always STINKS. These people will never do something good for this nation unless they get "more" out of it. | |
|
|
Well...Unless you have DOCSIS 3.0 on cable, you're not going to get 3mbps upstream. DOCSIS 2.0 and lower on most systems is using 16-QAM which is only capable of 2mbps from any home modem.
When DOCSIS 3 is rolled out, many providers are cleaning up the plant and changing to 64-QAM, as well as bonding upstream channels to provide more upload.
That's why you see most older cable plans top out at 2Mbps upstream. It's not because they want to give you asymmetric bandwidth. It's because it's all the technology allows.
They can give much greater than 2Mbps with DOCSIS 3 and 64-QAM upstreams, but in the end, it will still by asymmetric because the upstreams top out much lower than the downstream.
They could sell you a 50/50 service, but they're only artificially limiting the downstream to make it appear symmetrical. The technology is asymmetric. | |
|
| BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-Jun-2 5:52 pm
Re: Well...Well actually, my parents still have an ancient D2 modem from 2003 (good enough for them), and it gets 5mbps up and something like 20 or 25 down. On the downstream at least, Comcast can't give much more than 25 to D2 modems, as they can already eat up more than half of a QAM. | |
|
| koolman2 Premium Member join:2002-10-01 Anchorage, AK 2 edits |
to smcallah
A QAM16 upstream channel of a channel width of 3.2 MHz gives a total throughput of 10.24 Mbps. Real world is around 8-9. DOCSIS 2.0 supports 6.4 MHz upstream channels, so 20.48 Mbps, or real-world of around 16. | |
|
|
meaningless without enforcementyou have telcos doing nothing to close the gap even with these standards.. you don't have far to go even in the fiber rich northeast to see municipalities stuck on dsl or NOTHING, let alone the boondocks...
if you want to fix the problem, DO NOT force the telcos to jack everyone else's rate up(VIA USF taxation on the broadband subscriber who already pay too much) to compensate... instead give incentives for COMPETITION by NEW providers. | |
|
|
It will cost youIt will no doubt cost the consumer. For us to do that we will have to pass the improvements on to the end user. | |
|
sparks join:2001-07-08 Little Rock, AR |
sparks
Member
2014-Jun-2 2:12 pm
Its going to be whatever the co's say it isThey pay all the right people to set it to whatever they want.
affordable access LOL who is going to define this.
overall they need to just quit trying to make a show and let them do whatever they want since that what we get in the end anyway. | |
|
|
|